Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will that cover larger cross-Government areas, such as public service reform and child poverty?

If we have continuing pressures on public finance, clearly we need to see how money is being spent. A lot of the public sector reform that we have talked about for years has also been about how we can shift to more preventative spending. I do not see how we can do that without being able to see what our money is delivering, particularly when some of that preventative spend will be long term.

I want to ask some questions about performance reporting, which you touched on earlier. Since the start of the Parliament in 1999 there has been a desire to better understand how money is performing in terms of outcomes. When I joined the Parliament in 2007, I sat on the Finance Committee, and we heard about international best practice from, I think, Virginia. The then Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, now First Minister, John Swinney, was keen to introduce a structure or framework that would help us to better understand what our money was delivering. From that came the national performance framework.

It is a bit disappointing that one of the key messages in your report is that the Scottish Government cannot clearly demonstrate that public spending is delivering the intended outcomes. At paragraph 85, you talk about the reform strategy for the national performance framework. It would be good to understand what the challenges are with the NPF and what you hope will come out of the review and refresh of the NPF.

Minister, I go back to Sandesh Gulhane’s question about regulated professional bodies and the inclusion of the General Osteopathic Council and the General Chiropractic Council. My understanding is that neither osteopaths nor chiropractors in this country are medically trained—though they are in some other countries—and I am therefore not aware of their ability to prescribe pharmaceuticals, so their inclusion is unclear. When we asked which procedures they might be covered for, we were not given an answer.

I am really concerned that we have a potential loophole that could cause confusion. People might think that, because someone is regulated by the General Osteopathic Council or the General Chiropractic Council, they can perform the procedures that are outlined in the legislation. There is no reason for people to think that, so I ask you to consider whether those two bodies should be removed from the bill to ensure that it is as clear as possible.

I would appreciate it if you would do that. If someone has cerebral palsy and requires those injections, they should go to a medical practitioner to receive them. I would be concerned if people were routinely receiving medical treatment from people who are not medically trained.

I am not criticising the work that those bodies do, but neither of them have medically trained individuals. If we are inadvertently indicating to the public that they are somehow medical practitioners, I would be concerned about that. I am grateful for your agreement to look at that again and consider whether the two groups should be removed from the bill.

Do Andrew Watson or Gavin Henderson want to add anything around this? There are obviously many shared responsibilities.

Thanks for that. That all sounds good. David, do you want to add your comments?

Gosh, I almost want to change my questions after hearing the points that David Anderson made in answer to Colin Beattie’s questions. I will try and shift a little bit, however.

David was mostly talking about the Scottish Government’s responsibilities and how it has interacted. I am keen that we all recognise that the Promise was made by not just the Scottish Government but other public bodies, too. It was a promise from the whole of Scotland that we all need to make sure that we are keeping.

I am keen to hear how we are managing to get the joined-up working that is required. I would be keen to hear from COSLA whether there is the correct engagement across local authorities. If we could hear from COSLA first, then maybe David Anderson could talk about the experience from his perspective on whether local authorities are managing to get the engagement that they require with the Scottish Government and with other significant public authorities, such as local national health services. Would Nicola Dickie or Fiona Whitelock want to come in first?

Sorry, what I mean is, on a local level, are we managing to get the people who are all committed to the Promise to work together? The Promise cannot be delivered in silos. It can only be delivered if we all work effectively as team Scotland to deliver something that we have all promised. We are all committed to this. I have not heard anybody saying that they are not committed to the Promise, so we cannot do it in isolation. Are we managing to break down the barriers that have sometimes made such a joined-up piece of work more difficult? Are local authorities experiencing that change and are they managing to work not just for the Scottish Government and not just across their own portfolios, but with big organisations such as the NHS?

Thanks for that. My next question was going to be whether you were able to start doing that, so that we, as politicians, can make sure that we are putting pressure in the right place. If you have that in hand, that sounds good. Thanks very much. Thank you, convener.